David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:19:55 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The whole license is effectively identical to the terms of the
> > Expat license <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>.
>
> Well, I'd regard this license as a "BSD-1", i.e. BSD with just the
> first clause (and the "header")
[…]
Nevertheless, "[the terms of] the Expat license" is going to have you
better understood when you want to refer to these terms.
> Also, the BSD license itself has a "All rights reserved" at the top.
Many copyright statements have this. It seems to be some long-obsolete
piece of copyright cruft, that would best be removed in every instance
(since it's totally unnecessary in any Berne signatory jurisdiction).
> Maybe I was just too overcautious asking here?
You are to be commended for asking. Please feel free to ask questions
here again about DFSG-freedom of license terms.
> But, well, here we say "megghiu diri chi sacciu, chi no diri chi
> sapìa" (that's Sicilian, not even Italian... it means "it's better
> to say «I don't know», than saying «I didn't know»", meaning "better
> being cautious")
The current copyright regime certainly makes that a sensible policy to
follow.
> > You're right, and [the "All rights reserved" clause] should best
> > be removed by the copyright holder. You might like to communicate
> > with them if possible to get it removed, for maximum clarity of
> > license terms.
>
> Sure. I have a good communication with upstream, and they just
> released this new version because of other copyright issues
> (regarding a manpage)... only that they added this new script :(
In my estimation, the situation as you've described still makes the
work DFSG-free. You should be able to proceed with confidence, while
those negotiations for clarification go on.
--
\ “I have a large seashell collection, which I keep scattered on |
`\ the beaches all over the world. Maybe you've seen it.” —Steven |
_o__) Wright |
Ben Finney